For a while now, a few of us have asserted that Gary not only embraces full-preterism but also that full-preterism is dispensationalism's distant, drunken cousin. A significant number of individuals were reluctant to acknowledge either of these assertions. Yet, in Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess’ newest book, they openly recognize their alignment with certain dispensationalist premises and claim that they have fixed not only dispensationalism but also every other eschatological perspective with their "newer perspective [that] also belongs in the camp generally referred to as 'full preterism.’” Furthermore, it appears that Kim Burgess and Gary DeMar are now employing a strategy reminiscent of what occurred within the full-preterist community over a decade ago. The logical conclusion of full-preterism points towards a complete dismissal of contemporary biblical relevance. However, most of us were reluctant to fully embrace this perspective, leading to an internal division within our ranks between "full-preterists" and "hyper-preterists." It's crucial to acknowledge that it is all the same trash: [emphasis mine]
In spite of the wrong historical focus of the historic creeds, confessions of faith, and catechisms mentioned above and the many systematic theologies, there can be no doubt about this specific historical focus if one is determined, in opposition to all of the raging confusion when it comes to the subject of Biblical eschatology, to let Scripture set its own hermeneutic; its own eschatological worldview. Providentially, but also somewhat ironically, this Biblical focus on “Israel” is what Dispensationalism has been saying to the Church since the middle of the 19th century, and it is true. The eschatological focus in the Bible is on Israel, first and foremost, for this promised salvation was “to the Jew first” (Rom. 1:16, 2:10) and, what is more, as testified to by Jesus Himself, this salvation that was then to go forth to the Gentile nations was “from the Jews” (John 4:22)! But then, Dispensationalism erred/derailed very seriously by putting the focus on the Israel of 1948 and thereafter instead of where the proper focus is from Scripture—the Israel of the Old Testament, the people or the seed of Abraham, leading to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel. Jesus Christ was and is Himself the eschaton of OT Israel! This eschaton of OT Israel occurred in the years AD 30 to 70 and it marked the consummating eschatological process in OT Israel’s history of redemption as the temporary Mosaic or Old Covenant order transitioned to or was transformed into the eternal New Covenant order in and through the death, resurrection, ascension, session (enthronement), and, yes, the parousia of Jesus Christ.
To head off any misunderstanding up-front, another vital point needs to be put on the table for the thesis that is to be developed in the Episodes that follow. The period of AD 30 to 70 in OT Israel’s history of redemption is not the whole eschatological story, nor can it possibly be so. Neither Gary nor I espouse what has been called “hyper preterism” or what I prefer to label as “AD-70 full-stop preterism.” The position on preterism taken herein seeks to carve out a much more exegetically nuanced and, therefore, a more faithful version of preterism. It is neither a hyper or full-stop preterism that goes too far by seeing everything as wholly completed by AD 70, nor is it the all-too-common position known as “partial preterism” which is “inconsistent preterism” or “arbitrarily-bifurcated preterism.
We affirm a position on preterism that seeks to do full and consistent justice to the eschaton of Israel’s redemptive history in the period of AD 30 to 70 in the person and work of Christ. For this reason, and for the lack of a better term at the time, back in the mid-to-late 1980s, I coined the label “consistent preterism” for this perspective (having picked up the modifier “consistent” from Albert Schweitzer’s “consistent eschatology”), so, yes, this newer perspective also belongs in the camp generally referred to as “full preterism.” But it is quite vital, as I said, to realize that this consistent preterism falls short of the error of hyper preterism while not compromising on the consistency factor by sliding off into an arbitrary form of partial preterism in order to try to save face before the ecclesial powers of the aforementioned historic creeds, confessions of faith, and catechisms of the Church.
- The Hope of Israel and the Nations, Kim Burgess and Gary DeMar, p. xvi-xviii
For those who may be curious, know that this book is essentially a polished transcript of the initial 12 podcast episodes featuring Kim Burgess. If you've already tuned in to the podcast, you won't find anything new besides an introduction by Kim, a preface by Gary, and some footnotes.
Save your money.
<DarthVaderVoice>I am developing the doctrine. Pray I don't develop it any further.</DarthVaderVoice>
Seems Gary & Kim may need to borrow the notes from the Transmillennialists on how to trademark their brand of full preterism. I hate to see Gary go down this road. Thanks, Jason, for keeping tabs on this.